Judith Curry goes from building bridges to burning them

In her recent post, Judith Curry takes issue with the politicization of science. But rather than making a well reasoned argument backed up by evidence, her post comes across as a strong but largely unfounded allegation of widespread bias and dogmatism.

What to think of a passage like this:

Once the UNFCCC treaty was a done deal, the IPCC and its scientific conclusions were set on a track to become a self fulfilling prophecy. The entire framing of the IPCC was designed around identifying sufficient evidence so that the human-induced greenhouse warming could be declared unequivocal, and so providing the rationale for developing the political will to implement and enforce carbon stabilization targets.

This sounds like an accusation that the IPCC conclusions were predetermined before it even started assessing the science. That is a far reaching and very bold claim. All that Curry presents in favour of this claim is her narrative of a trio between UNFCCC, enviro advocay groups and scientists. The actual history and mandate of the IPCC however look quite different to me. Btw, that doesn’t mean that no valid criticism could be leveled against the IPCC, see e.g. Eric Steig’s comment at Judith’s or James Annan‘s frequent critiques.

And then:

When I refer to the IPCC dogma, it is the religious importance that the IPCC holds for this cadre of scientists; they will tolerate no dissent, and seek to trample and discredit anyone who challenges the IPCC. Who are these priests of the IPCC?

Excuse me? Is this a respected scientist talking? Someone who is trying to build bridges between scientists and their critics? By calling respected scientists “high priests of the IPCC”?

This kind of accusatory framing, based on mere innuendo and speculation, is the main reason that she gets a lot of flack from other scientists. It increases, rather than decreases, the polarization, and it starts to overshadow those issues where she does (or at least did) make valid points.

I was actually quite sympathetic to Curry’s attempts at building bridges, and see a lot of truth in her criticism of circling the wagons. Keith Kloor, in an interesting post contrasting Judith’s post with Gavin’s at RC, aluded to an over-defensive reaction to criticism which is occurring both amongst those who portray themselves as heretics (such as Judith Curry) but also amongst mainstream scientists (quite understandably so, but probably counterproductive).

Her unfounded allegations are insulting for the whole profession. It increases the polarisation and doesn’t add to the building of bridges (perhaps a one-way bridge). And I’m saying this as someone who, on the “pro-AGW” bloggers side, was probably one of the most receptive to her ideas. I am sincere and anti-dogmatic and I take great issue with her painting a whole scientific field, at the edge of which I work myself, as quasi religious dogma.

Update:

Eduardo Zorita – not a big fan of the IPCC – agrees that “Curry’s reflections are too broad-brushed” and add to the polarization.

Some more stunning things from Curry, e.g. when she wrote

The media also bought into this [blind support of the IPCC against its critics], by eliminating balance in favor of the IPCC dogma.

Judith Curry has had quite a few follow up posts in the meantime, trying to explain where she’s coming from. The posts on “dogma” were not very helpful, but her recent post on “ideology” makes more sense. My reply to that post is here (I may try to make it into a post some day).

For it to be a bridge to some outside world, the bridge should remain grounded at the original place as well.

Your strong and broadbrush accusations towards your professional peers, and the lack of criticism towards empty talking points and conspiratorial thinking
make you lose that grounding imho. You’re pushing herself away it seems. It’s your choice of course, but I can’t square it with your stated objective.

I think the core of your argument as I see it (the need for scientists to be less defensive, less circling of the wagons, more introspection, more communication and collaboration with “outsiders”, taking criticism seriously, etc) is important and valid. But the way you go about airing it, with broadbrush accusations towards mainstream science/ists (RC en the IPCC process are squarely in the mainstream), give the impression of a one way bridge, where as you walk along you burn the bridge behind you.

See as an example how different (e.g. constructive rather than destructive) John Nielsen-Gammon voices his criticism. Granted, your criticisms may be stronger, but the way they come across, I tend to think that an increasing number of climate related scientists will be put off by it, at the same time as an increasing number of true skeptics, pseudo-skeptics and conspiracy theorists will cheer you on.

169 Responses to “Judith Curry goes from building bridges to burning them”

When pushed to identify the ‘cadre,’ she coyly demurs… but alludes to “the RC branch of the community”, “mid to late career middle ranking scientists who have done ok in terms of the academic meritocracy,” and “others [who] were still graduate students when they were appointed as lead authors for the IPCC.”

The “priests,” thus, can be none other than Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann. Seriously, I think she’s not naming names because she only has two.

What I like about Dr. Curry is that as much as she throws accusations and dark suspicions (or whatever else pops into her head or was just emailed to her by a fan) at the climate science community, she ALSO gives the ‘skeptics’ a *good going-over*.

Oh, wait….never mind.

Anyway, I would love, love, love to attend one of the major climate science conferences and hear what her colleagues might be saying about her in the hallways. Genomics (my field) is so boring by comparison, there’s hardly any fun in snarking about Craig Venter any more.

I think you need to note a very real distinction. I don’t believe Curry is attacking science or scientists. I think she is attacking a bureaucracy, a lot of politicians and environmental lobbbyists and some small portion of scientists who have taken advantage of that bureaucracy, and a political process that is dragging our understanding of what is happening and what our options are to a dead halt.

I agree with her appraisal. Schmidt’s parallel narrative at RC is also good, but does not address the same points.

Saying Curry is attacking science or scientists is just playing into the whole horse-race game again. It’s obvious that what she’s attacking is the IPCC–and it deserves the criticism.

Tom has a point. If I wanted to “attack a bureaucracy, a lot of politicians and environmental lobbbyists and some small portion of scientists who have taken advantage of that bureaucracy, I would probably write something like “at the heart of the IPCC is a cadre of scientists whose careers have been made by the IPCC… it is the religious importance that the IPCC holds for this cadre of scientists; they will tolerate no dissent, and seek to trample and discredit anyone who challenges the IPCC…These scientists have used to IPCC to gain a seat at the “big tables” where they can play power politics with the collective expertise of the IPCC, to obtain personal publicity, and to advance their careers.”

Let’s be even more cautious. Here is the paragraph in which the word “cadre” appears:

> When I refer to the IPCC dogma, it is the religious importance that the IPCC holds for this cadre of scientists; they will tolerate no dissent, and seek to trample and discredit anyone who challenges the IPCC. Who are these priests of the IPCC? Some are mid to late career middle ranking scientists who have done ok in terms of the academic meritocracy. Others were still graduate students when they were appointed as lead authors for the IPCC. These scientists have used to IPCC to gain a seat at the “big tables” where they can play power politics with the collective expertise of the IPCC, to obtain personal publicity, and to advance their careers. This advancement of their careers is done with the complicity of the professional societies and the institutions that fund science. Eager for the publicity, high impact journals such as Nature, Science, and PNAS frequently publish sensational but dubious papers that support the climate alarm narrative.

PDA, note the expression: “cadre of scientists”? Note also some examples of “scientists” that are susceptible to fit into that “cadre” ?

There is no IPCC bureaucracy. The whole thing runs out of a small office in Geneva with about 12 staff members. Each of the working groups has a a support unit with about 8 staff WG1, WG2, WGIII

The IPCC has always been a small tail operation. What there are a lot of are scientists. Given that they membership of the working groups changes regularly, claiming that a small group rigidly controls the IPCC is another non starter. Somehow, they managed to get the FAR and SAR out before Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt got their doctorates.

Apologies if your comment got stuck in moderation; they have now been approved. I removed the words “priest” and “religious” from the list of moderation flags to better enable this discussion. After this discussion slows down they will go back on, as I find them very insulting in characterizing a whole field of science (if that wasn’t obvious yet).

Eli makes a good point re (the lack of) IPCC bureaucracy. Noteworthy is also that the IAC recommendations would entail a much stronger organisational structure, which in all likelihood would also mean more bureaucracy.

Eduardo Zorita has some useful things to say about Judith Curry’s post as well.

Firstly I agree that Judith’s intemperate language was not bridge-building, I was rather surprised when I read it, and she’s said similar things before.

However a couple of things in your post:

Firstly, you take her ‘Wait a minute, what climate change problem?’ and attack it without printing her following sentences, directly following, which were: ‘In 1992, we had just completed the first IPCC assessment report, here was their conclusion: “The size of this warming is broadly consistent with predictions of climate models, but it is also of the same magnitude as natural climate variability. . . The unequivocal detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect from observations is not likely for a decade or more.”’

So I think she’s in the clear there.

On the subject of media – and I have glanced at your ‘Global Environmental Change’ article (does the very title of the publication indicate anything, I unworthily wonder) – in the UK there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the quality media have whole-heartedly endorsed the IPCC, indeed more than the IPCC with their following up of research by Greenpeace et al which is typically more ‘alarmist’ (as one might reasonably expect from lobby groups).

It is only since Climategate that the BBC, ITV, and the quality newspapers could POSSIBLY be accused of issues of false balance. For the previous 20 years it was entirely one way.

It may well have been different in the US, but the famous libertarian fossil fuel denial machine never existed here. The overwhelming impression for 19 of the last 20 years has been that it is positively immoral to question the impacts of CO2 via the ghg mechanism, and, further, the urgent need to mitigate. For example, only 5 (I think) UK Memebers of Parliament voted against the Climate Change Act, despite its glaring faults. They could not be seen to, and indeed probably weren’t aware of the arguments against it, as the media was really very one-sided.

I would expect the same to be true in the Netherlands, pre Climategate, and most of the rest of the EU. Would you agree? I see you link to a May 2008 piece you wrote saying that there was ‘false balance’ – do you mean in Europe too? Back then I was not conscious of really any counter-voices to the science of ghg’s, to the impacts of global warming, or to the preferred policy choices of Kyoto/Copenhagen/EU cap and trade and so on. I felt there was a serious shortage of ‘counter-voices’ to the science of impacts, and policy prescription. Only Lomborg really got air-time as far as I can recall (and I think we can all agree that the attempt to kill him professionally, as a result of his air-time, was disgraceful.)

I’m conscious from posts on Realclimate that they feel very strongly that there is false balance, and their attacks on Pearce and the Guardian indicated their sensitivity to the issue.

An anecdote – as I was driving to work this morning there was a news article on the radio about flooding in the UK, and the impact on home insurance becoming more expensive or even unavailable. Neither the interviewer nor the man from the Insurance Association attempted to ‘blame’ the issue on climate change – that’s new. Any time from a year ago going way back my belief is that they would have.

I note that Zorita seems to agree with me (and Judith) on the role of the media, from his comment you linked to.

‘For me the media played a very important role. In my limited experience with them, they did tend to distort and highlight the most alarmist aspects and downplay any mention of uncertainty. Some scientist did voluntarily used the media as a loudspeaker.’

Bart, what completely destroys Curry’s “positive feedback” story and the IPCC not being clear enough on uncertainties is that recent research mostly shows the IPCC message was conservative. Well, it would ‘fit’ is the positive feedback referred to downplaying the issues, but her recent blogposts all point in the other direction.

Moreover, I have to wonder whether Curry ever was involved in large projects (she probably has, but what the heck did she (not) learn from those?). My own experience is that even with several friends in a large project, you cannot control such large operations the way she proclaims. In my experience as book Editor, I would love to have the power Curry claims certain people have. As a book chapter Contributor, I’m glad I’ve never encountered an Editor who had such power over me. I know it is my personal experience, but I really know of no other scientist in my field who has noted anything different. Those contributors who let themselves be fully led by the Editor invariably delivered shoddy work.

Willard, what I find most disconcerting about the quote you cite is that she once again does not dare to name names, and thus tarnishes everyone. She has named a name once: Mike Mann. She claimed he got in because he came with the hockeystick, despite me pointing out that Lead Authors of TAR were selected in 1997, one year before the reconstruction 1400-1997, and two years before the actual “hockeystick”. She never acknowledged that. She *may* have a point in asking “how did Mike Mann get elected?” But she immediately turned that into a conspiracy. Sad, really.

“A long time ago I used to work as a mediator / negotiator. How this approach connects to the notion of building bridges is beyond me.”

In so far as I can tell her approach is to build a bridge from herself to “skeptics” by basically accepting all their criticisms as having merit and value (yes even the ones that contradict the other ones). I think there’s also a perception that in order to bring the skeptics in “the activists” have to be pushed out of the scientific community hence Dr Curry believes she’s simultaneously reaching out to both skeptics and “non activist” scientists.

There are at least two huge problems with the approach. Firstly it’s predicated on skeptical perceptions of “activist” versus “non-activist” being correct which would be a little bit like working with creationists to isolate “atheist activists” from the scientific community.

Secondly it assumes that once the “activists” are removed the skeptical attention won’t simply shift to the next group of publishing scientists.

Unfortunately Dr Curry doesn’t seem willing or interested in considering whether skeptical arguments concerning the IPCC or particular scientists are actually correct or have merit, consequently she seems constantly surprised at the response to arguments she makes predicated on their correctness.

> Especially in the renascent subfields such as econology and public health, these publications and the media attention help steer money in the direction of these scientists, which buys them loyalty from their institutions, who appreciate the publicity and the dollars.

This paragraph should be welcomed by public health scientists, which are usually studying in medecine faculties. This paragraph should also please econologists, if they exist.

PS: Are there any econology studies somewhere, or is it a sub-sub-field of public health?

> Environmental sustainability is rapidly becoming the most critical public health issue. Prevailing notions of health in environmental decision-making do not embody concepts inherent in health promotion and the new public health. Health promotion emphasizes the importance of income and power equity, and social support/connectedness (health-economy relationship), alongside direct and indirect human health threats posed by environmental toxins (health-environment relationship). Health promotion also acknowledges the inherent limitations of scientific research, and the need for value-based decision-making in the absence of definitive information.

I believe Curry is ingratiating herself with political leaders who are gearing up for climate science hearings on the Hill: she’s mentioned on her blog that she’s been contacted by Congressional staffers. In a comment on CaS last night, she brought up “the specter of investigations into this situation (not just the emails, but more broadly) in the U.S. with the new Republican congress,” in an odd blurt that had no relevance to what was being discussed. Her blog, which welcomes (but never explicitly endorses) the wackiest mad tinfoil-hatters, is perfect for establishing her cred as a dissident scientist.

It’s a guess. I have no evidence other than the above observations. I’d be thrilled to be proved wrong, but I’ll watch the unfolding of events next year with interest.

Waiting for the unfolding of events, let’s look at the unfolding of the paragraphs.

Here is the paragraph that follows the last one I quoted:

> So do I think these priests of the IPCC are policy advocates? They are mainly concerned with preserving the importance of the IPCC, which has become central to their professional success, funding, and influence. Supporting the emissions and stabilization policies that they think logically follows from the science is part and parcel of this. Most don’t understand the policy process or the policy specifics; they view the policy as part an parcel of the IPCC dogma that must be protected and preserved at all cost, else their success, funding and influence will be in jeopardy.

Priets. Policy advocates. Professional success, funding, and influence. Misunderstood policy process and specifics. Preserving at all cost a dogma.

“Anyway, I would love, love, love to attend one of the major climate science conferences and hear what her colleagues might be saying about her in the hallways.”

They are rather confused about Curry’s bizarre musings. They really do not know what to think. They do seem to agree that she is destroying her credibility and reputation, and is speaking about things to which she is not qualified to speak to.

Her colleagues do not see her actions as being consistent with trying to build bridges, but is rather causing much damage.

It is all very sad. Especially when you read who she is attracting (and “feeding”) with her rhetoric. Reading the thread that Bart linked to was scary……

Worse still, when pressed to back up her accusations and assertions with facts, Curry failed/refused to do so. This foray of hers seems to be unravelling really quickly.

If the IPPC is so damaged and if they (Curry and Pielke Jnr) claim to care so much for the science, then why do Curry and Pielke Jnr refuse to participate at any level? And instead of throwing stones form the outside, use their knowledge and expertise to improve the science and IPCC form the inside? Why are they not participating in the process and being constructive? I vaguely recall that Pielke Jnr has made some rather lame excuses, but what is Curry’s excuse?

In my opinion, the fact that Curry and Pielke Jnr choose to throw stones, make unsubstantiated accusations, play to ideologues etc. is very telling of their true motives and interests.

In fact I would go as far to say that their actions demonstrate, to all but the ignorant and those with anti-science agendas, that they (through their actions, and in some case inactions) do not care for the advancement and betterment of science.

PS: Thanks to all who have been over at Curry’s blog challenging her misguided and uninformed musings and trying to set the facts straight.

Another suggestion is that anyone in charge of critical data/models/research institutes should, in the interest of removing conflict of interest, be severed from political advocacy. This would include Hansen at GISS who goes on protests and officially endorses candidates or anyone acting as an author/editor for IPCC. This is not about free speech, but about propriety. How can we trust the GISS data when the head of the organization is an activist?

“I’m conscious from posts on Realclimate that they feel very strongly that there is false balance, and their attacks on Pearce and the Guardian indicated their sensitivity to the issue.”

Why does something immediately have to escalate into an alleged ‘attack’? And do you deny that many journalists are giving false equivalence to some outlandish segments? That has become a very real problem on this file. Anyhow, as I see it, RC were critiquing Pearce for mangling his story. How about the fact that it could be claimed that in failing to apply due diligence, Pearce was in fact the one ‘attacking’ climate scientists by providing ‘skeptics’ with inappropriate fodder? Pearce also mangled Latif’s talk which he gave WWC3 in late 2009, and NewScientist refused to issue a clarification despite receiving formal complaints. Look how much mileage the ‘skeptics’ got out of that one….

Re your story about the flooding. The increased incidence of flooding events observed around the globe (of which the UK is part) is in fact consistent with the science– that is, extreme flooding events will become more frequent in a warming world…you know, Clausius-Clapeyron and the loaded dice that we are creating. Research has shown that the hydrological cycle is indeed accelerating, just as predicted.

Would you object if the media framed the extreme flooding events (like the event in the UK last fall, and the flooding in China this year or that in Brazil and in Pakistan, and in portions of N. America) or extreme heat waves (like the recent Russian and European and Australian heat waves) in that context (i.e., these events are consistent with what one should expect as the planet continues to accumulate energy)?

Judith’s “bridge building” activities do seem to lean rather curiously to one side of the river. Contrast the frequently positive responses she gives to skeptics (including some pretty inane ones) with the inadequate frankly juvenile responses in follow up to Eric’s post.

That could be. However, I just reviewed the PDFs on the IPCC site in which they list the authors and review editors for WG1-III and neither one of their names appear on the list of 831 authors and review editors. So I am not sure what their role in AR5 will be, if any.

Good God. Let me see, has Loehle ever signed a climate change inaction petition? How about the fact that Spencer and Pielke Jnr and other skeptics (e.g., McKitrick, Christy) are members of so-called ‘think tanks’…..

The example of Hansen is ludicrous– does he not live in a democracy with the right to free speech? And is it really a bad thing for Hansen to be walking the talk? Hansen (and other climate scientists) clearly do not wish AGW to be a problem or real, period. Loehle and Curry are very, very confused.

GISS can be trusted because it has been corroborated by independent SAT products generated by NCDC, CRU, Russians and JMA, all of which use different data analysis methods, assumptions and even select different station. Not to mention that the GISS analysis has been by the CCC project and also independent data platforms (RATPAC, AMSU etc.).

And let us not forget the beautiful irony of the accusations from Loehle (a “skeptic”) about alleged dodgy temperature data…has he forgotten about Spencer’s and Christy’s (both “skeptics”) infamous ‘cooling’ in the UAH data from years ago….a perfect example of confirmation bias that was.

Anyhow, back to alleged ‘climate activists’ who should not be trusted. Does Judith Curry also believe the signatories of this open to be “activists”, whose voices should be ignored?

“The example of Hansen is ludicrous– does he not live in a democracy with the right to free speech? And is it really a bad thing for Hansen to be walking the talk? Hansen (and other climate scientists) clearly do not wish AGW to be a problem or real, period. Loehle and Curry are very, very confused.”

Dr Hansen is probably the most extreme example but unfortunately the extremes define the debate.

I would very much prefer that climate scientists didn’t get involved in activism. Dr Hansen absolutely has free speech and I can certainly understand how he feels a need to take direct action but it’s incompatible with his role as a scientist.

Although skeptics won’t acknowledge it that door swings both ways in that
Dr Spencer’s views also reduce my confidence in his work. Indeed reading his blog shows he has a strong preference for temperatures to be trending in a particular direction and of course has made errors which produce exactly the answer desired.

If a scientist really feels so strongly they need to start handcuffing themselves to things then they need to step outside of science and remain there.

So nothing to add about Curry and Pielke Jnr not participating in AR5? Rick, statements like the one I quoted above that are nonsensical and not conducive to meaningful discussion. Please elaborate.

sharper00,

I agree. I must admit that I would prefer that Hansen did not participate in protests (did he really handcuff himself to something or is that conjecture? I did see a photo of him in handcuffs with a police officer behind him). BUT, I feel like a hypocrite for saying so. It is possible to separate your personal life form your work and he has every right to peaceful protest.

What Loehle is advocating is muzzling of climate scientists. That Curry and Loehle clearly ignore Christy and Spencer’s UAH data is revealing. There is a huge double standard here.

Anyhow, this is all a side show which is distracting us from the elephant in the room. We know we have a problem on our hands and know what we need to do to address it, yet some elements seem to be willing to do whatever it takes to distract from that. And now that would (sadly) seem to include Curry.

Ha yes sorry, I was using the metaphor of activists handcuffing themselves to things to denote “serious activism” rather than the type of signing a petition or whatever. It’s confusing now that I look back it considering Hansen has been arrested at protests.

“What Loehle is advocating is muzzling of climate scientists. That Curry and Loehle clearly ignore Christy and Spencer’s UAH data is revealing. There is a huge double standard here.”

I agree that there’s a strong double standard and I think consistent application of the standard eliminates quite a lot of “skeptics” but not very many scientists.

“And now that would (sadly) seem to include Curry.”

This is the part I find strangest of all because she apparently doesn’t dispute the science (although manages to speak extensively as if she does) and treats the whole problem like a social issue. It’s a bit like a teacher breaking up a schoolyard fight i.e. the thing they were fighting over is presumed to be unimportant with “getting along” being much more important.

If a scientist really feels so strongly they need to start handcuffing themselves to things then they need to step outside of science and remain there.

I have to say, sharper00, I don’t agree with this at all. Tactically I think that a lot of the things Hansen does are less than ideally productive, but I don’t like the idea that strong feelings about the subject you’re studying – especially one with the potential consequences we’re talking about here – somehow disqualifies you from doing the science.

“I don’t like the idea that strong feelings about the subject you’re studying – especially one with the potential consequences we’re talking about here – somehow disqualifies you from doing the science.”

We’re not just talking about strong feelings. The kinds of things Dr Curry and Loehle are talking about would likely elevate scientists to a real priesthood where they have to create the appearance of superhuman objectivity and detachment, a standard we know nobody can meet.

Having strong feelings is fine but when you go from that to protesting out on the street demanding policies based on the scientific topic you study then you have a conflict between the role of scientist and activist. I don’t think you’d accept such a conflict on a topic where you didn’t happen to agree with the individual and nor should you.

I really don’t think there are many scientist activists but as above the debate is shaped by the extreme ends. I think it’s silly to say that realclimate is staffed by “activist scientists”.

Judith framed the worries about climate change in 1992 as if we hardly knew about it at all, which isn’t true, and she’s aware of it based on other posts of hers. That she explains her statement by referencing the first assessment report doesn’t change that her framing is at best confusing uncertainty with knowing nothing.

About the media, for as long as I’ve looked into the climate change problem I’ve found that media (incl in Holland) were giving too much emphasis too crackpot theories, such as a book of Dutch journalist entitled “the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist” in which he denied the existence of pretty much every environmental problem out there: ozone layer, climate change, acid rain, you name it. I kept hearing about it in the media. Just one example of many. Oftentimes when an expert is interviewed, there is a counter-expert on hand who argues the opposite, without regard for the relative merit of each viewpoint. That’s not something from post “climategate” or US only. Of course that doesn’t mean that media don’t also exaggerate things to the “alarmist” side. Media tend to look for/emphasize the extremes.

I do think that Curry cares for the advancement and betterment of science. Even more so, that’s the prime reason for her engagement in the way she does. That I find her efforts of late misguided and counterproductive is another matter entirely. She is sincere in her efforts I believe, but regardless of my thoughts on that matter, it is counterproductive to impugn malign motives. It only feeds into her “I’m an heretic, see how these guys talk about me” narrative. Better to stick to the points she makes.

Most of the times, it’s quite easy to distinguish when a scientist speaks about action or about science. So it’s easy to reply to a mindreader that appeals to motive or interest. Isolate the scientific claim and ask the mindreader to argue against the claim.

Without entering into a debate about the productivity of specific strategies, I’d like to point out that saying that a comment is “bugsh*t insane” self-defeats itself. There are more appropriate tropes available to express oneself. If there is a time to understate one’s point, I believe this is the time. Pretty please with some sugar on it.

One can even let the comment speaks of itself. A comment like that must be cherished. It is a thing of beauty. It is the product of many, many, many, many years of evolution.

“I do think that Curry cares for the advancement and betterment of science.”

I would dearly like to believe that, but thus far she is failing miserably. In fact, I would argue that she is making things much, much worse.

And it is hard to be gentle and nice in addressing some of the inane things that she says…..but I guess that I should try harder too. It would be much easier to agree with what you say Bart if I had not read the content of her blog.

Today is the first day that I have read her blog. It was depressing. It was worse than WUWT at times. The noise-to-signal ratio is off the charts, the signal was is lost in a quagmire of conspiracy theories and pontification. She agrees with the most bizarre comments. I am having a really hard time finding evidence that she sincere and/or has good intentions.

I wrote a bit about this over on Bart Verheggen’s blog but basically I believe she wants to build bridges to the skeptical community and to what she considers to be non-activist scientists. This involves basically accepting all non-science oriented skeptic arguments (hence all the stuff about the IPCC and RC) and a good chunk of the scientific ones as well. It also appears to involve not actually criticizing any skeptical positions and even giving helpful pats on the back via the “Good post!” type comments.

She no doubt believes skeptics have something to contribute if only the “bad” scientists can be removed from the process.

Marco wrote on November 5, 2010 at 13:56: “Willard, what I find most disconcerting about the quote you cite is that she once again does not dare to name names, and thus tarnishes everyone. She has named a name once: Mike Mann. She claimed he got in because he came with the hockeystick…”

Several times she has wondered how a person as junior as Mike Mann became a lead author. This seems more like professional jealousy than anything else. With the House going after the climate scientists, Curry is well-positioned.

And does anyone think that the physical properties of CO2 will change if the IPCC is spiked and climatologists are persecuted? Talk about a Galileo situation.

She has now dragged Santer into the fray…as if he has not been though enough already.

Someone suspected that Curry has an ax to grind with her colleagues, reading her latest blog post reinforces that hypothesis. It really does sound like she is jealous. Although after the hell that Mann and Santer have been though, she should be careful what she wishes for.

If true, using a serious issues such as AGW to do so is very poor form on Curry’s part IMHO.

Speaking of Galileo situations, it would be interesting to document where Judith Curry organizes the narrative of her own posture.

For instance, skipping four paragraphs from the last one I quoted earlier:

> I started speaking up about integrity and transparency, and I was told that this wasn’t helping, and was advised to stay off the blogs. And why was this? Central to protecting the IPCC dogma is the UNFCCC process, and we mustn’t allow this illegal hack to derail the policy activity in Copenhagen. Well, its hard to tell to what extent Climategate contributed to the failure of Copenhagen; it seems that raw politics was much more in play than the politics of science.

The first sentence is interesting. Somehow, some people seen to be against integrity and transparency. It’s not about prudence, i.e. the way you talk about that. People are positively looping something.

The rest of the paragraph is interesting. It answers a why-question. Why people reacted the way they did. Climategate. Cadre of tramplers.

Lahsen’s primary thesis is that conspiracy attributions tend to travel as in the old game of telephone. She describes Fred Seitz’s charges against Ben Santer, points out that Seitz accused Santer of violating the rules of the IPCC, but never checked the rules; he just assumed that Santer must have violated the rules.

Then she interviews William Nierenberg, who presents a rather distorted version of Seitz’s accusation (Where Seitz thought Santer changed Chapter 8, Nierenberg thinks some anonymous conspiracy changed it without Santer’s knowledge). When Nierenberg shows her a report making accusations about Chapter 8, Lahsen asks who wrote this report and Nierenberg replies, “Oh — it just, it doesn’t matter by whom! All they did was, they took the final version and compared it with what was sent for publication.”

Lahsen finds that people who believe in conspiracies around climate change tend to accept anything that confirms their belief in fiendish behavior from the other side, often without even understanding what they’re accepting, and without taking even the most elementary steps to check its validity.

She documents that a milder version of the same applied to the mainstream science community: When the Union of Concerned Scientists issued a call for scientists to condemn Seitz’s groundless charges against Santer, many wrote letters supporting Santer without ever reading the draft and final versions of Chapter 8 to see whether Seitz might have a point (Lahsen asked them whether they had checked and they admitted that they hadn’t).

For the record: Lahsen makes it clear that there was no substance to Seitz’s charges.

Why do I rehash this here? Because we see the same thing with Curry. She presents some very nasty innuendo, cloaked so it can’t actually be tested (echoes of Joe McCarthy refusing to show his list with the 205 names of Communists in the State Department) and lots of people on her blog immediately attest to the truth of these charges, even though no one can actually tell exactly what the charges are.”

Oh great, MapleLeaf, you made me look. And now I find you are being paid by Al Gore. BTW, do I have to keep checking to see if your question gets answered?

Seriously, what I see there is a lot of hand waving. If the IPCC reports were truly at odds with the scientific literature, there might be an issue. But unless the conspiracy is really vast, I don’t see this.

And speaking to the post that the Rabett highlighted, Coby and others posted a recent segment from Rachel Maddow:

Bart, a couple of good comments by you upthread. I agree with you about JC’s motives, agree with a couple of others here that at times she can be her own worst enemy, I suspect usually by rushing posts and making them a lot less clear than they could be.

Re your comment on the media in the Netherlands, I was very interested to see that the crackpot fringe get a run. In Australia, as indicated by Don Aitkin over at Judith’s blog, the media coverage of climate change has been completely dominated by the disaster theme, the only mention of anything else is an occasional comment piece by right wing columnists and an article or two by Lomborg in The Australian. The other main “serious” papers (Melbourne Age and the Sydney Morning Herald) are solely alarmist.

sharper00 — “I would very much prefer that climate scientists didn’t get involved in activism. Dr Hansen absolutely has free speech and I can certainly understand how he feels a need to take direct action but it’s incompatible with his role as a scientist.”

I beg to differ. If it hadn’t been for Hugh Hammond Bennett engaging in politics, even gaming the politicians, and being an activist for better farming practices, US soldiers would most likely have entered WW2 with lungs filled with dust. If the politicians and businesses in Thailand hadn’t actively excluded and ridiculed Dr. Smith Dharmasaroja (to the point of threatening physical violence) then over 230,000 people may not have lost their lives on Boxing Day 2004.

“”You’d really have to go digging into very old historical records and the scientific literature and extrapolate from what’s there to find that yes, there could be effects (leading to tsunamis) in Thailand,” says Phil Cummins, a seismologist who studies the region at Australia’s national geological agency. “But he was correct.”

I never bought Curry’s line that she was building bridges. It was evident (to me at least) that she was jealous of (particular) climate scientists and was missing the attention she got from a hurricane paper she once wrote (at least I gather she hit the newstands at some stage). Maybe because of her political leanings, or maybe because she can’t make any contribution to climate science itself, she chose to get into bed with deniers to get some attention.

I gather she could do good science if she put her mind to it. [edit. BV]

I’m not sure why any serious person pays her any attention. Best just ignore her most of the time.

(If I didn’t know better, I’d have guessed that Prof Mann stood her up one time and she’s never forgiven him.)

MapleLeaf, I appreciate your comments and others by Chris C, coby, adelady, etc. there. What is apparent to me is that the JC blog has attracted a certain tribe that, judging by the positive comments, are encouraged by the host. I did have to chime in on the vaccine “skeptic”, being an immunologist and recovering vaccine researcher.

And isn’t the elephant in the room the 3 degree climate sensitivity? Fuller says 2.5, but that’s close enough. If Dr. Curry is on board with that she seems to be picking the wrong fight. My concern is that when the US House brings out the hatchets for the climate scientists, Dr. Curry will be providing the sharpening stone.

I live in a conservative area in the US and the vindictiveness here towards the Democratic Party, liberals, schools, “elites” (educated people) and scientists is palpable. They now have some power and will use this power against those with whom they disagree. The impact of the US Congress is much greater than that of the IPCC in these parts.

‘Why does something immediately have to escalate into an alleged ‘attack’?’ – the RC posts on the Guardian and on Pearce were undoubtedly so strongly worded as to be described as attacks. (And the language of both posts and comments was that of heresy btw.)

‘And do you deny that many journalists are giving false equivalence to some outlandish segments?’ – over the last two decades most journalists have indeed given too much exposure to certain aspects of climate science, the alarmist end. They’ve been spoonfed by FoE and Greenpeace – lobbying organisations. That’s my experience in the UK. There has not been, until Climategate, any issue of false balance in my opinion.

We’ve discussed this before I think – Lawson is better on policy response than Hansen, so having both on a programme about ‘AGW and what to do about it’ is not false balance anyway.

Pearce’s book is a good one. Have you read it? There are few people with the experience over two decades of environmental writing who could have written it. The fact that you accuse him of the crime of ‘providing ‘skeptics’ with inappropriate fodder’ tells its own story? He’s a journalist. He wrote a book. About the last two decades of climate science and the impact of Climategate. And yes, it did shine through, or perhaps glimmer through, that he felt he had been let down, misled. That was his story. And he was attacked for heresy I’m afraid more than detail.

‘Re your story about the flooding. The increased incidence of flooding events observed around the globe (of which the UK is part) is in fact consistent with the science…..’

I am not aware that there has been unusual precipitation in the UK, a pre-requisite for flooding, but I could be wrong. My point was relief that in a programme about flood-related housing insurance over the next three years both the interviewer and the insurance man stayed well clear of any link between flood insurance and AGW. That alone was interesting, as in previous years, even six months ago, it would have been 90% probable a link would been made.

‘Would you object if the media framed the extreme flooding events (like the event in the UK last fall, and the flooding in China this year or that in Brazil and in Pakistan, and in portions of N. America) or extreme heat waves (like the recent Russian and European and Australian heat waves) in that context (i.e., these events are consistent with what one should expect as the planet continues to accumulate energy)?’ – it depends on the context. In a news article about the availability of flood insurance, and risks of flooding, I think policy reaction is more interesting – riverine issues, land use etc. That some indeterminate part of the cause of the flooding might be due to China’s ballooning carbon emissions over a multi-decadal timescale is probably of only slight interest to the Radio 4 listener in Henley, and belongs on a science programme. The floods in Pakistan – again, news articles there are human interest, aid, and policy reaction like river use and land use.

The relentless linking of everything that goes ‘wrong’ on AGW, from Katrina, to Pakistan, to our little UK floods, to the very cold winter, to the European heatwave of 2003 when my wife was driving a horse across France as people died from heat, HINDERS your case – do you see that? The listener/reader/voter gets ‘compassion fatigue’ to borrow an expression, and after a while thinks, not unreasonably, ‘Hang on, it can’t ALL be due to CO2 surely’, because he was told c 10 years ago by UEA that our children wouldn’t know snow. Silly stuff.

And the reason there is ‘AGW fatigue’ is because the listener/reader has had it rammed down his throat, because the MSM have been uncritical cheerleaders for the IPCC, Greenpeace, FoE, WWF and so on. Zorita – ‘For me the media played a very important role. In my limited experience with them, they did tend to distort and highlight the most alarmist aspects and downplay any mention of uncertainty. Some scientist did voluntarily used the media as a loudspeaker.’

That was my point – Bart is quite quite wrong, in my UK opinion and experience, to think that the media is CAUSING the fall-off in support by false balance and over-indulgence of sceptics. The fall-off is a natural reaction to the MSM being far too far the other way.

Where the MSM are, imho, behaving correctly, is in starting to separate WG1, 2, and 3 – GHG science, impacts, and policy response. So, yes, there are more ‘sceptics’ around because Lawson and Lomborg have very valid views on impacts and policy response. And quite right too. The economics of wind farms need taking apart and examining.

‘Judith framed the worries about climate change in 1992 as if we hardly knew about it at all, which isn’t true….’

I still think that’s unfair. If you read the sentence you lifted in the context of the para before, its own para, and the para following, it makes fine sense, and not the sense you take. Imho. And you are slightly pinning a denier badge on her by taking that one sentence out, which is also unfair?

‘About the media, for as long as I’ve looked into the climate change problem I’ve found that media (incl in Holland) were giving too much emphasis too crackpot theories, such as a book of Dutch journalist entitled “the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist” in which he denied the existence of pretty much every environmental problem out there: ozone layer, climate change, acid rain, you name it.’

I guess we might not agree about what defines ‘too much’, and I also separate crackpots who say ‘GHGs don’t exist’ to crackpots who say ‘acid rain is NOTHING like the problem enviros say it is’, which isn’t crackpot at all. Interesting you mention acid rain – did it exist, in terms of a real problem? My recollection is that it didn’t really. We were told 50% of trees would die, and none did, or something like that? My recollection is strongly that the dismissives were right, as they were about Chernobyl deaths and sickness too.

As a matter of interest, where do you stand on passive smoking? Are people who deny any material link between illness and passive smoking crackpots, or sensible for saying ‘not proven to the point of not true’? My reading on the subject leads me to worry more about my cleaning bills than my health when in a smoky bar in Switzerland.

Deech, I raised that immunisation issue because I thought it was a good analogy – and the instant I hit the button I realised that there’d probably be a couple of anti-vaxxers in the crowd. And they arrived right on cue.

I was so unsurprised by this I found myself not even disappointed. Which is a sad thing really.

Bart – is it possible that your antennae are so alert for non-science in the Dutch media that you see more of it, as it were, than there is?

I accept that could work the other way round, I could see more of the alarmist stuff, but I very rarely, pre-Climategate, saw ANYTHING (apart from some Telegraph stuff) that was questionig, let alone critical, in the quality press and media.

The Geat Global Warming Swindle perhaps stands out as an exception to that, but on TV the BBC have done whole alarmist series.

Yes, just as when you bought a new gadget you seem to be seeing [typo corrected] them suddenly all around you, the way one’s antenna’s are set definitely influence one’s perception, and I’m sure I’m no exception to this. That leaves the point still standing though that a -to me- surprisingly large amount of nonsense gets aired. YMMV of course, dependent on your antenna’s.

Your perception of the acid rain problem is, simply stated, wrong. Not surprising, since you are living in Australia. Acid rain has not been an issue in Australia, but it has been, and in areas still is, in Europe and North America. You can start here:http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/

The acid rain issue I remember from Europe in the late seventies (?) turned out to be a total storm in a teacup, no? The Black Forest is just fine.

Bart – did you know that advertisements are most read by those who have already bought the product? :)

Maple Leaf- media coverage is on topic, it’s in Bart’s post. He objected to Judy’s claim that the media were unquestioning supporters of the IPCC consensus. Imho he is quite wrong. His ‘lament’ that they give false balance is not accurate, or even close, in my news zone of the UK at least. And apparently Australia, from other posters.

Acid rain is real enough, my question was what harm does it do, and did it do the damage it was supposed to in the early eighties? I was intrigued that Bart, not me, brought it up as an example of debunked denier nonsense that is still parrotted in the media. So I asked whether it really was crackpot denier nonsense to say that the prognostications for acid rain by enviros, typically mass forest death, turned out to be bunkum (and don’t claim they suddenly in ten minutes slapped Nox and Sox filters all over).

So here’s what The Economist environmental correspondent had to say recently:

‘In 1984, acid rain was the environmental scare of the day. As the science correspondent of The Economist, I wrote: `Forests are beginning to die at a catastrophic rate. One year ago, West Germany estimated that 8% of its trees were in trouble. Now 34% are…that forests are in trouble is now indisputable.’ Experts told me all Germany’s conifers would be gone by 1990 and the Federal Ministry of the Interior predicted all forests would be gone by 2002.

Bunk. Acid rain (though a real phenomenon) did not kill forests. It did not even damage them. Scientists eventually admitted that forests thrived in Germany, Scandinavia and North America during the 1980s and 1990s, despite acid rain.’

I DON’T want a debate about acid rain. I was merely picking Bart up, and enquiring as to his definition of cracpot media coverage. I don’t think acid rain deniers or passive smoking deniers for that matter, are science-denying crackpots. They just say the effects are not as bad as claimed, take a chill pill.

The parallel with AGW is there – we were not ALLOWED to disbelieve the dangers of acid rain then, nor the dangers of AGW now.

Maple – did you not follow the link I posted, to hear what senior Greenpeace people say happened to acid rain? :)

Yes I did, it made me laugh. I was specifically talking, as I think Bart was when he raised the subject being Dutch, of the early eighties scare when all German and Scandinavian forests were going to die, like, really soon? They didn’t. And it isn’t crackpot to poit that out.

The EPA link is funny. I enjoyed this;

‘The auto and coatings industries are fully aware of the potential damage and are actively pursuing the development of coatings that are more resistant to environmental fallout, including acid rain. The problem is not a universal one—it does not affect all coatings or all vehicles even in geographic areas known to be subject to acid rain—which suggests that technology exists to protect against this damage. Until that technology is implemented to protect all vehicles or until acid deposition is adequately reduced, frequent washing and drying and covering of the vehicle appear to be the best methods for consumers who wish to minimize acid rain damage.’

and this

‘Scientists believe that this combination of loss of soil nutrients and increase of toxic aluminum may be one way that acid rain harms trees.’

‘Sulfates and nitrates that form in the atmosphere from sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions contribute to visibility impairment, meaning we cannot see as far or as clearly through the air, affecting our enjoyment of national parks, such as the Shenandoah and the Great Smoky Mountains. Based on a study of the value national park visitors place on visibility, the visual range improvements expected at national parks of the eastern United States due to the Acid Rain Program’s SO2 reductions will be worth over a billion dollars annually by the year 2010. In the western part of the U.S., nitrates and carbon also play roles, but sulfates have been implicated as an important source of visibility impairment in many of the Colorado River Plateau national parks, including the Grand Canyon, Canyonlands, and Bryce Canyon.’

‘Acid rain looks, feels, and tastes just like clean rain. The harm to people from acid rain is not direct. Walking in acid rain, or even swimming in an acid lake, is no more dangerous than walking or swimming in clean water.’

MANN: Unfortunately, there are powerful special interests in the fossil fuel industry for whom the prospect of climate change policy—a price on carbon emissions—would be extremely costly. They have invested millions of dollars in well-honed disinformation campaigns to convince the public and policy makers that human-caused climate change is either a hoax, or not nearly the threat that the scientific community has established it to be. In many respects, it comes straight from the same playbook used by the tobacco industry to cast doubt on the health threat of tobacco smoking. Indeed, many of the same players are involved.

The criminal theft, release, and misrepresentation of private emails from the University of East Anglia immediately prior to the Copenhagen Climate Summit last December was part of a carefully orchestrated smear campaign against the climate science community timed to thwart any binding international agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Climate-change denial outfits collaborated closely with conservative media outlets to manufacture a fake scandal that would distract the public and policy makers at this crucial juncture. Historians will look back at this as a low point of intellectual dishonesty in the corporate-funded, climate-change denial campaign.

The acid rain issue is relevant in the sense that the same jolly crew of denial, including Fred Singer, funny how he turns up again, and the Regan and Bush administrations delayed implementation of controls until ~1990, long after the problems acid rain causes and the atmospheric mechanisms had been discovered. They did this in the usual way, pushing for more “research” before taking action. In this, they were backed by some scientists, including, as Eli has been told by one of the players, Stephan Schwartz from BNL.

One often wonders where the idea that climate scientists are in it for the research money comes from. The answer is, as usual, simple, transference. People such as Singer, Seitz, Schwartz, Nierenberg, etc. played the four corners game of keep away from mitigating actions and smiled when the research funding came to their institutions. It ain’t a bug, it’s a feature.

the Regan and Bush administrations delayed implementation of controls until ~1990, long after the problems acid rain causes and the atmospheric mechanisms had been discovered. They did this in the usual way, pushing for more “research” before taking action.

The same was true on the more localized issue of logging of old-growth forests and the decline of the northern spotted owl.

Under W non-agency review of the science was contracted out, and (surprise!) the industry argument that the northern spotted owl was “just a subspecies” was driven under by genetic evidence (the industry argument was bizarre given that ESA protections are granted to “genetically identifiable populations”.

Anyway, the end result was that the denialist-requested non-agency review suggested that the NSO was actually a separate species, based on genetic analyis … and pretty much shot the industry + W admin case to hell.

We’ve not heard much sense.

My guess is that 50 years from now, Republicans will admit a similar “defeat” (after having blocked action for decades, just as was done with old-growth forests in the US).

The only difference being that CO2-driven climate change is global, directly impacts human welfare, and takes far more concerted action to mitigate/adapt.

Oh, well, not my problem … 56. No kids. This makes me a “ghoul” in Keith Kloor’s world …

BV – I see you edited a sentence of my post. Not a problem with me at all. But I thought I’d point out that where I live, ‘going bonkers’ is a slang phrase meaning ‘going crazy’ – similar to ‘going off the rails’, or ‘acting in a manner that makes no sense’. I figure you might have attributed another meaning to the phrase, as the word is similar to another word that means something completely different – lol.

No time to play much today and I’m certain that not many will hear this but here it goes anyway. I have written many times that the IPCC was formed with pre-determined outcome. The three groups couldn’t operate as one and come to the same conclusions of the same strength. The funding couldn’t be part of the group directly and come to conclusions having the extremeness that they did. It should only take short consideration to realize these points are reasonable.

If any of the three WG didn’t come to the extreme conclusions then the funding and power would collapse. If WG1 found that man didn’t contribute significantly to warming, no money, IPCC closes. If WG2 didn’t find the contributed warming dangerous, no money IPCC closes. If WG3 found the solutions didn’t exist, were low cost or could be technically achieved in 10 years, no money IPCC closes. If they weren’t able to generate an economic ‘scenario’ which is better for people than non-interference (that the IPCC lands at the center of), no money or future power the IPCC closes.

As you see, all of the above came true though so the IPCC unsurprisingly dodged quite a number of program killing facts. They threaded the needle, ran the gauntlet, dodged the bullets, and landed right on the bulls eye of extremist positions that someone skeptical of their real motives would predict.

To achieve the above, we find climate models regularly running well above trends, papers which overstate thermometer warming, real UHI effects ignored, disagreeing data tweaked, stubborn data shoved under the rug, paleoclimate noise sorters used as proof of unprecedentedness, fish shrinking 40% from overfishing and another 3% from global warming,silly ocean acidification trends, screams about record ice loss in the Arctic while ignoring the record gain in the Antarctic, ridiculous global flooding papers, on and on and on. In the middle of it are good scientists who only care about the science, perhaps they are to myopic with their own work and cushy jobs to see the din around them.

The IPCC is a broken political organization that has as much to do with science as the Pope does. Like all political organizations, it exists for its own expansion nothing more. Scientists (especially liberal ones) go along with it knowing in their hearts that it is the right thing to do, never realizing that the politicians, polyscienticians (or high priests as Curry suggested) have their own agenda.

IMO Judith is 100 percent correct, and that is a shame because much of the global warming science is true. The public just isn’t dumb enough yet to fall for the politics.

Indeed, deech, Jeff Id finally shows his true colors (I know, I know, he did before): it is all a big conspiracy. It’s amazing Jeff agrees with Judith Curry, but essentially dismisses her publication on antarctic sea ice (no, Jeff, the ‘record’ sea ice extent in antarctica is not forgotten, it was one of the predictions of climate models….oops!).

Jeff, you might want to read Spencer Weart’s The Discovery of Global Warming, because there actually is a long, long history behind the build-up towards the IPCC. Alternatively you could read this more extensive summary.

Tell us how it could have been done differently. Tell us how it should be done now.

People who claim that the UNFCC had not decided in advance what conclusions they wanted are extremely naive. No government body has ever concluded that it did not need to exist and no government body ever will.

It is crazy to claim the UNFCC is some how unique in the history of bureaucracy.

The issue is not AGW per se. The issue is the obession with mitigation as the primary policy. That is where politics and self interested have corrupted the UNFCCC. nstitutions like that could never support adapation as primary response because it they would not have been able to justify their continued existence.

What we should be doing now is nothing. Rising oil prices will drive investment in renewables over the next 30 years. As climate changes we will learn how to reduce the harms caused by the negative consquences while enjoying the benefits for the positive consequences.

Thanks for at least noting that I typically show my true colors, it is something I work hard at.

I don’t know why you guys always have to holler conspiracy every time someone points out a plan. Like you really think politicians don’t plan, or perhaps you think that they always hold your interests above their own. It didn’t take dark room planning to understand that this organization was built to survive for a purpose, just how incompetent would a politician have to be to not take a pet organizations long term survival into account? How dumb would the politicians have to be not to plan for growth and survival of their new organization? They would have to be really bad at their jobs wouldn’t you say?

As the AIP article linked to by Neven shows, the IPCC is indeed a part-political organization. However, what it shows to me, is both how funding improved for climate science with the creation of the IPCC as well as how governments are watering down the IPCC reports, and are not trying to create more alarm. That its all about money is a given, for every winner there is a loser – but it doesn’t mean that those who won a bigger piece of the pie have cheated.

As far as sinister motives go, citizens of the Asian countries perceive emissions reductions efforts as efforts by western developed nations to suppress economic development there – it would be very strange for Democrats in the U.S. to be in the forefront of this effort.

Jeff, politicians indeed have plans, care to tell us when they have succeeded in those plans? Even better question: have you ever been in charge of a group of academic scientists? If so, you’d know that if you have a plan with a desired outcome, you should not hire a large group of academic scientists to deliver the required information. Moreover, as RB also points out, the IPCC reports (in particular the SPMs) are consistently watered down by governments. In other words, we have a government plan (according to Jeff) to fool the citizens of this world, for which they hire academic scientists (notorious for being independent thinkers), who then deliver a report those governments water down. Looks to me more like a government plan to fool the citizens in believing it actually isn’t *as* bad as it really is, while still maintaining the illusion that they are actually doing something.

“The criminal theft, release, and misrepresentation of private emails from the University of East Anglia immediately prior to the Copenhagen Climate Summit last December was part of a carefully orchestrated smear campaign against the climate science community timed to thwart any binding international agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions.”

That’s good to know he knows that.

“Climate-change denial outfits collaborated closely with conservative media outlets to manufacture a fake scandal that would distract the public and policy makers at this crucial juncture. Historians will look back at this as a low point of intellectual dishonesty in the corporate-funded, climate-change denial campaign.”

Er …. hello?

Jeff Id has it right when he says: ….. it’s “a shame because much of the global warming science is true. The public just isn’t dumb enough yet to fall for the politics.”

You’re right that IPCC issues are not off topic on this thread, so go right ahead here if you want. I just had the feeling that I had read your opinion about the IPCC before, but that may have been at your or Judith’s blogs or another thread here or all of the above (probably). Guess we can either agree to disagree or you could spell out what specifically you’d want me to respond to.

Naturally though, I disagree with you that my allegation of finding Judith’s allegations unfounded would be unfounded ;-)

Thanks much. The IPCC and the science are separate issues, your point that criticism of the IPCC preconclusions is insulting to the profession doesn’t recognize that point. One is motivated entirely by politics and money and cites science, while the science is driven by observation and has been corrupted by money and politics of the IPCC. This corruption is what threatened credibility in the science.

When a guy studying fish in a river writes a paper that the fish are 40 percent smaller over 200 years due to overfishing yet somehow extracts from the data a 3 percent shrinkage from global warming because what else could it be, where is the outrage in this stupidity being accepted for publication? It’s simply bad work published in the name of global warming – done for the money. It is also further proof of the corruption of AGW science.

I sent the fish guy a nasty email and got no reply. I don’t blame him though because I don’t like dishonesty.

Nevin,

You asked how can it be done better?

Lets start with true openness of the review process, true it gives more room for blogs to mock the biased decision making but it also puts those decisions out in the open.

Second, if the UN wants anything to do with regulation or funding of global warming research, they should not be the ones to generate the main report.

Third, a truly apolitical document summarizing the science wouldn’t need to have the section on economic costs for different political options. I find that particular section so biased and false that I can’t get through the whole thing.

Fourth, once the document is made, individual countries should look for their own solutions. Establishment of a massive and pre-corrupted global government is something I’m not at all ready for. Were I in charge, I would immediately de-fund the UN and let it survive on other peoples money. The UN wants that control so badly they can taste it, but we are fools to give it.

Fifth, if the document must be about proposed solutions then a realistic engineering review of the available energy sources is critical. So far all I’ve seen is a bunch of silly hand waiving and claims that we should reduce overconsumption on our path to utopia – a very much anti-capitalist view of the world.

I again point out that with today’s technology, the only available energy source to keep our selves warm and comfortable without burning coal, is nuclear. IMO, any reasonable engineering style review will come to that conclusion. Enviro’s don’t like nuclear though. The poorness of this aspect of consideration of the IPCC “solution” again evidences that the IPCC assessments are NOT science as people here claim.

I can keep going but just thought some of this would keep a conversation going. Judith’s points about pre-conclusions apply quite well to the IPCC, an organization which appears in my view to be very much separated from science.

Oh, and nuclear is extensively discussed in WG III as a suitable mitigation path.

Finally, I have still not seen you explain how the IPCC reports are supposedly preconcluded, while the current science indicates the IPCC estimates are conservative. Unless you argue that the IPCC preconclusions were to minimise the impact of global warming…(which I doubt you are).

“Oh, and nuclear is extensively discussed in WG III as a suitable mitigation path.” — there is a difference between ‘a mitigation path’ and the ‘only viable mitigation path’ with today’s technology. I haven’t gone back to III in a long time but is solar also a ‘viable mitigation path’.

Jeff, solar is mentioned as one of many mitigation possibilities. There is NO method that is indicated as THE mitigation path, because there is no one method that is THE solution (no, nuclear is not, either).

The IPCC WGIII notes that up to 5% of global energy requirements may be produced by solar.

The concept that we can use solar or biofuel at all with today’s technology would be dropped if properly analyzed. In fact there is only one single tech we have that can even slightly dent the problem as posed – nuclear.

Wind, wave, biofuel and solar just don’t work yet and wind and biofuel never will. Solar will someday but not yet. Therefore if you want to ‘act now’ you get only one choice. The ‘part of the solution’ answer is just hand waving to make non-working “solutions” more palatable to the idiot masses. It is simple engineering, we also have a consensus, and we don’t need 50,000 line climate models to back it up.

As far as the dead link, I don’t know what happened. Just go to http://www.unep.org. That should work.

They are into the making, spending and redistribution of wealth up to their necks. Climate science is the golden goose. The IPCC was wisely split into a different organization as they can claim they don’t handle funding. The reality is that they are all one and the same group though. Guess which way their politics lean.

Interestingly, you apparently weren’t aware that the UN was a multi-billion dollar funding group for climate science/mitigation already. Now you have learned something new.

We unfortunately don’t have a multi billion dollar government organization we just have numbers. But you are right, I went too far with the tongue in cheek consensus comment but it is quite simple to figure out for yourself.

Run a few numbers on solar as it stands, it should take you no more than a few hours to convince yourself that solar is completely non-viable in all forms with today’s technology. If you don’t want to spend that much time, Biofuel is even easier. Wind turned out to be far worse than I suspected but is more difficult to figure out. Of course, if you don’t want to spend any time, you could just read the calcs at tAV.

When you have no working alternative of any reasonable scale, yet ‘scientific’ organizations packed with experts ignore that simple fact, that tells me that some ‘scientific’ conclusions are in fact politically driven.

The numbers show that these alternative sources of energy are unworkably bad performers due to inherent costs, low efficiency, no storage for intermittence and a variety of more minor problems. It is NOT a close call where maybe a tweak here and there and we’re good!

Biofuel has no hope whatsoever of becoming viable ever – or at least until a new and radically different kind of chlorophyll is invented. We aren’t anywhere near the technology to engineer our own plants to that degree though.

You are one of the guys who supports these alternative energies I assume. You owe it to your audience (here and professionally) and those who look up to you to do some calcs that support your policy. Spend a couple hours and prove me wrong. It would be nice to know something worked.

Jeff, your link to UNEP does not tell me anything about it funding climate science. WMO is NOT a UN organisation, while its funding is, compared to the average funding a scientist can get in his own country, extremely limited.

And solar *is* in *several places* of this world fully competitive with other sources. That you wave your hand and just do not want that to be right is not making much of an impression on many of your fellow engineers, who are happily working on solar power generation in many different aspects. It’s amazing you tell Bart he should do the numbers, while the IPCC reports are rich with references to publications that have done the math. You, on the other hand…

Marco – where (somewhere useful please) is solar fully competitive? I’m not aware that it is a financial proposition (I’m a financial man) anywhere absent subsidies or feed-in-tariffs of a multiple of the usual gas-powered kwh price.

Marco – your comment confuses me – are you sayig that solar is competitive in many places in the real world – ie people are building solar farms for profit unsubsidised? Or are you saying that the IPCC report is rich with references as to why they should be? Or why they are?

At the moment Jeff is waving his arms and saying ‘I’ve done the math, I’ve checked the numbers, solar doesn’t work at the moment for any number of reasons (cost when working, intermittency, and so on).

And you’re waving yours and saying ‘yes it does’.

It should be easy for you to find us a solar farm somewhere that is useful and profitable?

Sounds to me like you’re taking turns on two wheels (te kort door de bocht / oversimplification). We went over the topic of intermittency before, which can in principle be addressed by smartening up the grid; combining different energy sources; and combining large areas. I’m aware that most of these renewable energy sources are not cost competitive yet at most places, though with further improvements and economies of scale they likely will at some point in the not too distant future.

I know more than a few energy experts who would strongly disagree with your thesis that all of these technologies are fundamentally unworkable. Biofuel is probably the most complicated of the bunch to figure out the effects on the greenhouse balance due to the indirect land use effect of displacing a certain type of land use with biomass, causing a change in the amount of carbon stored (e.g. look up Searchinger; Fargione).

Plus, your nuclear isn’t going to do much in terms of heating. For that, improved insulation and (in the future) biogas and perhaps solar collectors are of prime importance. Planes aren’t going to fly on electricity either. It’s a complicated world out there.

Fact is that in particular in the developing world, which has an almost absent electricity grid, solar is far more useful than a nuclear plant. “Just build the grid” is a simple thing to say, but experience tells us that is nigh impossible in several places.

Bart, to my mind you’re staying at 10,000 feet and not getting to grip with the reality of the numbers.

Take as a hypothesis that the immediate task is to find a substitute for coal in generating electricity, given the vastness of the coal emissions? (And after that natural gas). That applies to the US, which is predominantly coal, much of Europe, and of course new power stations being built in the RoW.

This deals by far the biggest blow to emissions versus a BAU scenario, and is why the bulk of subsidies have so far gone into wind and solar – they are by definition renewable, don’t have the biofuel side-effects on food prices and land use, and tackle alternative electricity generation.

Given zero storage they can only form part of the solution, intermittency etc. There is a whole conversation there, for example correlation studies in the UK and Ireland on wind seem to indicate that wind generation is less random than was hoped across a very large area, the German grid may be getting stressed by the volume of solar etc, but let’s leave that aside.

Wind – you need some reason to suggest that it ‘likely will’ get cheaper in order to claim it will become cost competitive. Broadly that comes from manufacturing economies of scale, which surely have very little way to go? What else?

Solar – I’ve spent quite some time on solar companies in the stock market analysing them, and the ‘yield’ improvement is asymptotic and nearing maximum, absent some as yet unknown breakthrough. Manufacturing costs have fallen, but volumes are now so great that further gains seem difficult to predict. Jeff is generous re solar, saying that it could at some point improve considerably from here, but it needs to.

(At some point hybrid bevs may become more competitive – the technological limiting factor is battery technology, which is surprisingly poor for vehicles given the huge r&d over last 20 years into portable battery devices, but that’s what it is. I’ve spent a lot of time on battery vehicles, and it’s all in the future still, ie highly uncertain. But leave oil aside to simplify the discussion, it’s used solely for transport really, and as you say currently feasible (if expensive) oil substitutes for flight such as biofuels carry complicated side-effects.)

I don’t think one can say the answer is a little bit of everything if none of the electricity generating technologies really work on a standalone basis in most environments where substantial CO2 is emitted. Some single technology needs to make a real dent in it, and what Jeff is saying (I think) is that none do at the moment except nuclear, so if we don’t embrace nuclear it kinda shows we’re not serious about making a dent in it.

His belief that wind is hopeless for ever, biofuel ditto unless massive breakthrough, solar decades away, is in a way not relevant to the core base argument – none work commercially at the moment on any scale that can help with CO2, only nuclear does.

Nuclear can hardly be described as an “immediate” solution to replace coal, as it takes between 10 and 20 years from conception to implementation. Wind is a lot closer to grid parity than solar (in Dutch conditions at least). Technologies that are still “learning” will decrease in price as they proceed through the learning curve. Plus economies of scale get to kick in at some point.

If people want to continue this conversation, I’ll start a new open thread on technology. Takers?

Jeff Id wrote : “Lets start with true openness of the review process, true it gives more room for blogs to mock the biased decision making but it also puts those decisions out in the open.”

So, you have already decided that the decisions will be biased ? OK, doesn’t bode well for your neutrality. Nevertheless, perhaps you could outline what more the IPCC could do, to supplement what they already do, i.e. :

So you can whistle IPCC to the tune of Dixie if you want, you can say it should be happening, it could be happening – but it isn’t. Not where the large numbers are. And you should ask yourself a) why it is not, and b) why that should change.

I got back a few weeks ago from Laos, one of the most underdeveloped nations in the world. They have no ambitions for heavy industry, it’s a rural backward place. You could be right that there they do a few local solar farms, have some battery storage, and provide light for houses. Not worth building a grid. Very nice, very useful, but it doesn’t move the needle on global emissions.

(In fact, because they have hydro from the Mekong river, they are building a grid, with aid from UN etc).

Bart – good idea, I’d be interested in learning more, would be a good reference page to links, studies etc, like Jeff’s, we can begin to see how close to grid parity some things are, and under what assumptions and conditions.

The solar market is very closely followed in stock markets, because of the number of quoted companies, so markets like Germany are well understood.

It would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate too much ranting about how fossil fuels are subsidised etc, and ranting about wind/solar subsidies.

Also the UK has just approved new nuclear, in principle, and are arguing now about subsidies, in the form of guaranteed prices for the power (because nuclear is essentially fixed price delivery and in the form of waste disposal and decommissioning, and there is also data re how nuclear, which has the opposite of intermittency, can work with a grid which then needs on/off power like natural gas. So there’s plenty of real world data out there, which is useful.

Bart, nuclear is good for zone heating since the plants like to run full out. They can be balanced between electrical generation during the day and zone heating at night. The heat can also be used for industrial processes raising overall efficiency. Works best, of course, where population density is high.

It would be nice if Roddy Campbell stopped being a junior JC. He has no idea how much, for what purpose and to whom UN research grants are made, or even if there are any, but opinions, those he has. Uninformed ones at that.

Aha. I wonder why he thought I had an opinion, let alone expressed one, on UN research grants. Maybe he forgot his spectacles.

Marco – I looked at the IPCC link on solar – there wasn’t much meat there in terms of installed generation capacity and costs that I could see? I saw the ‘if my aunt had balls…’ part about 1% of world’s land area, but very little on costs.

There was a wonder-stock called Timminco in Canada, worth billions in 2007/8 because they claimed to have a breakthrough in cost in developing solar grade silicon, I recall half the cost after allowing for slightly lower conversion rate. The shares are down 99% since then, I assume because it didn’t work for some reason, but the rewards for ‘yield/cost’ breakthroughs in solar and storage in particular are immense, there’s no shortage of effort.

Roddy, it’s in the references. You are also looking at the wrong countries when you point to Laos (too long rainy season, mostly forested, and mountainous). North and Middle Africa would be the places where solar is more beneficial than any other electricity generation (in part because of infrastructure). Mexico might want to take note, too.

Timminco is a different story, something called “global recession” comes to mind, as well as overselling and other nasty insider financial deals.

Finally, there’s a Dutch saying that goes “Wie het kleine niet eerst, is het grote niet weerd”. Somewhat freely translated that gives “He whom does not honour the small, isn’t worth the big”. Any small step contributes and also buys us more time to develop (even) better solutions.

Marco – you were talking about ungridded areas where solar competes precisely because of the absence of grid-building cost? The reference you gave is clear on it … ‘mainly in rural areas where grid electricity is either not available or unreliable (WEC, 2004c). Decentralized generation by solar PV is already economically feasible for villages with long distances to a distribution grid and where providing basic lighting and radio is socially desirable.’ which kind of fitted my Laotian example I thought!

Providing basic lighting and radio is certainly socially desirable, but that’s not relevant to China’ss industrialisation and consequent emissions surely? And that is, you/IPCC are quite right, the only real area where solar is currently ‘economically feasible’.

The Timminco share price is certainly subject to stock market excitements, but the recession has affected global solar less than a lot of areas, it recovered handsomely in 2010 with record build in Germany (again). Timminco shares remain down 99%! A lot of solar shares aren’t. It was just to illustrate that there is no shortage of rewards and hence private sector r&d spend, into this stuff, let alone the billions being spent at Masdar. It was also to illustrate that forecast yield gains through technological improvement and breakthrough are very often overstated. Timminco are an example of that.

Marco – I hope I didn’t misunderstand you or put words in your mouth? I still come back to my earlier comment to you – why isn’t anyone building solar in any quantity that might help emissions? They are using solar in areas where:

It may become more cost competitive with coal/natural gas, it probably will, indeed could hardly fail to, but there is no reason i can see that it will become actually cost competitive, which limits its material deployment to the subsidies people are prepared to pay.

Roddy, why don’t people cycle to the store that’s half a mile down the road? Or hang their clothes out to dry, rather than put it in the dryer (and, often, less than half-filled)?

Not everything that happens is rational, to put it mildly.
Still, AFAIK China is the world market leader in production of PV products. While it generates very little energy by solar, it does use solar water heating a lot, though. Spain also has a significant amount of solar energy (3% or so, IIRC).

Wind, solar and biofuel are all complete bunk with today’s tech. You can call it oversimplification, I call it simple fact. If an ‘energy expert’ told me otherwise, I would ask a few questions and likely walk away understanding a hidden motivation, because the numbers aren’t even close. Invoking economies of scale is just handwaiving when you are off the mark by seven to ten times and you don’t have answers for intermittent production.

Nuclear heats things just fine, energy is energy and nukes make a lot of it. Planes need gas and for that we need new technology to change them. My point was that nukes are the only things which can have any significant impact in CO2 output right now, you make the point that it will take 10 to 20 years. While I disagree with this number, just how long do you think biofuel or solar will take? Are you arguing this from a rational or emotional point?

If you have gigawatts of production to replace, you need to replace it with something capable of producing gigawatts. If you need round the clock production, then you need something that produces around the clock power.

The discussion is relevent to the IPCC post above because it points to the idology of the people more than the reality of the science. Every time someone tells me ‘all of the above’ I realize that it is someone who hasn’t looked at the numbers or has a political motive. These are hard and real scientific facts about energy production which nobody here can refute and that the IPCC fails to recognize. This is the kind of problem which makes Judith Curry correct in some of her interpretations above.

I hope that in AR5 they will back away from the political conclusions, but doubt they will very much. Thus far the reaction to climategate has been to double down rather than take a moment to reflect. Journals tightened rather than loosening, the discussion became even more polarized. I hope it will loosen again with rational discussion of working solutions rather than the very bad choices people are trying to force through.

With that, I’ll leave your thread alone. I see you have other topics in mind here but can’t figure them out yet.

willard – “Most of the times, it’s quite easy to distinguish when a scientist speaks about action or about science. So it’s easy to reply to a mindreader that appeals to motive or interest. Isolate the scientific claim and ask the mindreader to argue against the claim.”

Willard, does this mean that you are able to see a person’s perspective, their point of view, where they are coming from?

Bart – “it is counterproductive to impugn malign motives. It only feeds into her “I’m an heretic, see how these guys talk about me” narrative.”

Willard, heed what Bart is saying … “I’m an heretic, see how these guys talk about me” … Curry is being skillful, coldly sincerely objective and dispassionate when she says this. She is engaging the best of her ability when she does it.

What is wrong with the AGW process is that it reeks of subjectivity. The science reeks of subjectivity.

Science has always had it’s subjective aspects.Those subjective qualities are publicly revealed in their full (painful to science) subjective glory to a public who nominally presumes science is above that failing.

Science has never been above subjective infighting.Scientists are defensive about being criticized of taking it personally.. Scientist are subjective entities just like everyone else.

I know very little about Curry’s journey from strong AGW supporter to becoming a threat and dis-creditor of all of science. I do know that her transformation is honest.I do know her transformation involves engaging what she does best.

You underestimate and disrespect her at your peril.

I do know that criticism concerning the AGW case is overwhelmingly concerned with it’s subjective excesses and the very very subjective defense of that criticism that it is being overly subjective.

Consider the advice of a Raving Loon. I embrace subjectivity so as to able to peer beyond it.

Raving, my personal opinion of Judith Curry is one of disrespect, as she has repeatedly fled from simple factual challenges. But I would never underestimate her, or rather, her influence. She has become a new rallying point for obfuscators and crackpots (just read through the comments).

> Willard, does this mean that you are able to see a person’s perspective, their point of view, where they are coming from?

No. It only means that when a scientist speaks about action or about science.

It’s quite simple to do, really. You simply ask yourself what the sentences, the paragraphs and the texts are about.

For instance, it’s easy to see that your last post is neither about action, nor about science. It is about rhetorics.

Bart says that Judith Curry’s is self-framing herself as an heretic. He disapproves and argues that this is counterproductive. The Hegelian meditation on subjectivity that you entertained to warn “the AGW case”, whatever that means, does not contradict anything Bart says.

I’m glad that each fragment of your awareness captures the way-of-going-about-process.

Here is a more mundane matter:

> Bart’s disprovable amounts to claiming that it is better to say nothing in public and outwardly go with the flow.

Notwithstanding what disprovable this sentence is referring to, it is important to remind that Bart is arguing that Judith tries to “build bridges” in a way that he finds not constructive. Your eye should catch, and your awareness should capture that it’s the ubiquitous process inherent in the important fragment that constitutes the title of the post.

– Tearing down and rebuilding to maintain the same.
– Calling attention to insufficient, poor design, deterioration
– Tearing down to replace with improvement
– Reducing the desire to use a pre-existing bridge

– construction of completely new bridges in tandem or otherwise

– building bridges in a covert manner as is the habit of motorway development in the UK (An isolated 6 lane cloverleaf flyover in the middle of nowhere here, a 2 km stretch of 6 lane freeway improvement to a grade “B” gravel track. The deed gets done before permission is sought.)

[…] about the authors' motives, a civil and intelligent discourse becomes almost impossible. We join Bart Verheggen's previous calls for Judith Curry to resume attempting to build bridges between the two sides of the climate […]